[Bug c/67610] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67610 --- Comment #4 from Luke --- Thank you!

[Bug c/67611] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67611 --- Comment #3 from Luke --- Thank you!

[Bug sanitizer/67513] ASAN: Not optimal shadow value check (unlikely condition checked in fast path)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513 --- Comment #7 from Yury Gribov --- FYI I'd prefer to keep current BIT_IOR_EXPR approach in asan_expand_check_ifn as it allows for efficient implementation for ARM targets (as compared to two successive branches currently used in LLVM).

[Bug c/67610] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67610 --- Comment #5 from Luke --- I'm so sorry, I did not read the instructions properly, giving you trouble.

[Bug middle-end/67401] Incorrect expand of __atomic_compare_exchange_8 using __sync_val_compare_and_swap_8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to baoshan from comment #27) > > It seems GCC at some moment unrolls the loop and creates such block with > > those ranges. Probably, the block is unreachable, but it would be better to > >

[Bug other/67634] New: Can't preserve bound register in interrupt handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67634 Bug ID: 67634 Summary: Can't preserve bound register in interrupt handler Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/67401] Incorrect expand of __atomic_compare_exchange_8 using __sync_val_compare_and_swap_8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401 --- Comment #4 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Fri Sep 18 18:26:13 2015 New Revision: 227914 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227914=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/67401 * optabs.c

[Bug libffi/65441] FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441 --- Comment #3 from John David Anglin --- Created attachment 36348 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36348=edit Proposed patch

[Bug target/67573] [SH] wrong code generated for libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cxx11-shim_facets.cc at -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573 --- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo --- I think this should be backported to GCC 5. Even if it might not be triggered often, there is a possibility for silent wrong-code bugs.

[Bug libstdc++/67620] New: _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1 fails to catch ios_base::failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67620 Bug ID: 67620 Summary: _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1 fails to catch ios_base::failure Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/67622] New: [6 regression] Solaris/SPARC bootstrap fails compiling stage2 stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67622 Bug ID: 67622 Summary: [6 regression] Solaris/SPARC bootstrap fails compiling stage2 stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/67622] [6 regression] Solaris/SPARC bootstrap fails compiling stage2 stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67622 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug sanitizer/67513] ASAN: Not optimal shadow value check (unlikely condition checked in fast path)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #7) > FYI I'd prefer to keep current BIT_IOR_EXPR approach in > asan_expand_check_ifn as it allows for efficient implementation for ARM > targets (as compared to two

[Bug target/67619] New: ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:425

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619 Bug ID: 67619 Summary: ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:425 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/67621] New: Syntax error for template function of template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621 Bug ID: 67621 Summary: Syntax error for template function of template class Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/67612] Unable to vectorize DOT_PROD_EXPR (PMADDWD?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67612 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/67619] ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:425

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/67621] Syntax error for template function of template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/66145] [5/6 Regression] std::ios_base::failure objects thrown from libstdc++.so use old ABI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cctsai57 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/16233] unhelpful error message when "template" is omitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16233 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-04-12 11:50:00 |2015-9-18 --- Comment #6 from

[Bug libstdc++/67620] _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1 fails to catch ios_base::failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67620 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/47679] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Strange uninitialized warning after SRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679 --- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Sep 18 19:33:48 2015 New Revision: 227922 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227922=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH] const_and_copies is no longer file scoped PR

[Bug bootstrap/67347] [alpha] unused function vms_asm_out_constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67347 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #29 from baoshan --- > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5 > times + 1). Why is this estimate wrong? The max value of n is 6, so the max value of i is 5 as "i < n", then the max value of j is 4

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #27 from baoshan --- > It seems GCC at some moment unrolls the loop and creates such block with > those ranges. Probably, the block is unreachable, but it would be better to > not create it in the first place. Finding out where and

[Bug middle-end/67401] Incorrect expand of __atomic_compare_exchange_8 using __sync_val_compare_and_swap_8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401 --- Comment #3 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Fri Sep 18 18:24:09 2015 New Revision: 227913 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227913=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/67401 * optabs.c

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to baoshan from comment #29) > > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5 > > times + 1). Why is this estimate wrong? > > The max value of n is 6, so the max

[Bug fortran/67615] ICE on using arithmetic if with array instead of scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > This patch to resolve.c catches the problem. Watch for > cut-n-paste corruption of tabs. > > @@ -10377,12 +10381,11 @@ gfc_resolve_code (gfc_code *code,

[Bug tree-optimization/47679] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Strange uninitialized warning after SRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679 --- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Sat Sep 19 02:56:15 2015 New Revision: 227931 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227931=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH] avail_expr_stack is no longer file scoped PR

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug rtl-optimization/67635] New: [SH] ifcvt missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67635 Bug ID: 67635 Summary: [SH] ifcvt missed optimization Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 --- Comment #12 from Paul Eggert --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #11) > Another alternative is to only warn if the variable is defined in the main > file (MAIN_FILE_P) as opposed to an included file. Thanks, this is a

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #31 from baoshan --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #30) > (In reply to baoshan from comment #29) > > > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5 > > > times + 1). Why is this estimate

[Bug c++/67632] explicit instantiation omits copy constructor and others

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632 --- Comment #3 from Joseph Link --- Yeah, watch out for the copy constructor that takes an allocator. That one's there. The compiler generated one is not.

[Bug c++/67632] New: explicit instantiation omits copy constructor and others

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632 Bug ID: 67632 Summary: explicit instantiation omits copy constructor and others Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/67631] brace initialization bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug libgcc/67624] arm/fp16.c __gnu_f2h_internal has wrong pattern for INF/NAN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67624 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- All NaNs should have the top mantissa bit set in the result of the conversion (i.e. the result of the conversion should always be a quiet NaN, not a signaling NaN) - setting that bit also

[Bug c++/67633] New: decltype on parenthesized class member access of a prvalue sometimes return wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67633 Bug ID: 67633 Summary: decltype on parenthesized class member access of a prvalue sometimes return wrong results Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/67632] explicit instantiation omits copy constructor and others

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/67631] New: brace initialization bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631 Bug ID: 67631 Summary: brace initialization bug Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug c++/67632] explicit instantiation omits copy constructor and others

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug other/67630] ymm and zmm register aren't preserved in interrupt handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 36349 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36349=edit A patch

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 Paul Eggert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eggert at gnu dot org --- Comment #10

[Bug tree-optimization/67283] GCC regression over inlining of returned structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283 --- Comment #13 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: alalaw01 Date: Fri Sep 18 10:55:11 2015 New Revision: 227901 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227901=gcc=rev Log: completely_scalarize arrays as well as records. gcc/: PR

[Bug fortran/67623] interaction between cpp and Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- I think multi-line strings like this are not well supported by C/C++. Eventually fortran needs to tell the preprocessor it allows them.

[Bug c++/67621] Syntax error for template function of template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621 --- Comment #2 from physik3 at gmx dot net --- Hi. (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > (In reply to physik3 from comment #0) > > foo.foo(); // this line gives a compiler error > > This needs to be: > > foo.template

[Bug fortran/67623] interaction between cpp and Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/67623] New: interaction between cpp and Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623 Bug ID: 67623 Summary: interaction between cpp and Fortran Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug other/67552] [meta] x86 interrupt attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- I think we should place if (current_function_decl && ix86_is_interrupt_p ()) { for (i = 0; i < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER; i++) { if (!STACK_REGNO_P (i) && !MMX_REGNO_P (i)) {

[Bug fortran/67623] interaction between cpp and Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- int main() { printf ("Hello\ /* */\ world"); } works as expected though: > ./a.out Hello /* */ world but then libcpp doesn't know about fortrans continuation

[Bug c++/16233] unhelpful error message when "template" is omitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16233 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||physik3 at gmx dot net ---

[Bug c++/67621] Syntax error for template function of template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/66142] Loop is not vectorized because not sufficient support for GOMP_SIMD_LANE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142 --- Comment #22 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Sep 18 07:57:00 2015 New Revision: 227896 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227896=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-18 Richard Biener PR

[Bug c/64480] List designated initializer triggers -Wmissing-field-initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64480 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/56566] bogus "is narrower than values of its type" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56566 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug sanitizer/67513] ASAN: Not optimal shadow value check (unlikely condition checked in fast path)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug sanitizer/67626] New: Erroneous report on downcast to __numpunct_cache

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67626 Bug ID: 67626 Summary: Erroneous report on downcast to __numpunct_cache Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/67628] [tree-optimization] (a && b) && c shows better codegen than a && (b && c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/67627] New: libatomic parallel build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67627 Bug ID: 67627 Summary: libatomic parallel build failure Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug tree-optimization/67628] New: [tree-optimization] (a && b) && c shows better codegen than a && (b && c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628 Bug ID: 67628 Summary: [tree-optimization] (a && b) && c shows better codegen than a && (b && c) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/67628] [tree-optimization] (a && b) && c shows better codegen than a && (b && c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > This is due to the fold-const.c optimization which should not be there any > more. You need to do benchmarking on x86 also if you remove it. >

[Bug tree-optimization/67628] [tree-optimization] (a && b) && c shows better codegen than a && (b && c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > This is due to the fold-const.c optimization which should not be there any > > more. You need to do benchmarking on

[Bug libstdc++/56158] bad enum values computed by operator~ in ios_base.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- Now that sanitisers are complaining about this we should really fix it.

[Bug libgcc/67624] New: arm/fp16.c __gnu_f2h_internal has wrong pattern for INF/NAN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67624 Bug ID: 67624 Summary: arm/fp16.c __gnu_f2h_internal has wrong pattern for INF/NAN Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug libstdc++/66624] libstdc++ iostream uninitialized data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66624 --- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- markus@x4 ~ % clang++ -fsanitize=undefined -O0 -g t.cc markus@x4 ~ % gdb ./a.out Reading symbols from ./a.out...done. (gdb) b __ubsan::ScopedReport::~ScopedReport Breakpoint 1 at 0x41f5c0: file

[Bug c/67243] Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243 --- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek --- Another case is -Wdeclaration-after-statement: int fn (int m) { if (m > 0) return -1; int a; }

[Bug libstdc++/66624] libstdc++ iostream uninitialized data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66624 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/67625] New: some constexpr expressions rejected as enumerator value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67625 Bug ID: 67625 Summary: some constexpr expressions rejected as enumerator value Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/50749] Auto-inc-dec does not find subsequent contiguous mem accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749 --- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo --- Thanks for the interesting test/use case.

[Bug libstdc++/56158] bad enum values computed by operator~ in ios_base.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/67619] ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:425

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/42568] [Cygwin] BLOCKDATA referenced in EXTERNAL not loading from library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|WAITING CC|

[Bug libgcc/67624] arm/fp16.c __gnu_f2h_internal has wrong pattern for INF/NAN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67624 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67615] ICE on using arithmetic if with array instead of scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug bootstrap/44756] [meta-bug] --enable-werror-always issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756 Bug 44756 depends on bug 67347, which changed state. Bug 67347 Summary: [alpha] unused function vms_asm_out_constructor https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67347 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/67619] ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:425

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619 --- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Fri Sep 18 16:27:51 2015 New Revision: 227909 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227909=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/67619 * except.c (expand_builtin_eh_return):

[Bug tree-optimization/47679] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Strange uninitialized warning after SRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679 --- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Sep 18 15:29:01 2015 New Revision: 227908 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227908=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH] Break out phi-only cprop into its own file PR

[Bug c/67629] New: bogus -Wreturn-type in a function with tautological if-else

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629 Bug ID: 67629 Summary: bogus -Wreturn-type in a function with tautological if-else Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/67630] New: ymm and zmm register aren't preserved in interrupt handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630 Bug ID: 67630 Summary: ymm and zmm register aren't preserved in interrupt handler Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/67630] ymm and zmm register aren't preserved in interrupt handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|